Libel Actions.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXI, Issue 11356, 22 January 1889, Page 2

Libel Actions.

LARNACH v. N.Z. HERALD, (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, January 21. In the Supreme Court the libel action, damages £3000, Larnach v, proprietors of the N Z. Herald, commenced this morning, Plaintiff says that on the 19th of July, 1888, defendants falsely and maliciously i published articles commenting on the .departure of .the plaintiff from the colony (when Parliament was in session) to enter into business in Melbourne, having 'first a ked leave of absence on the plea of illness in his family, and: continuing to draw his honorarium, wherefore he claims £3000 damages. Defendants admit publication, but deny malice, and any that the' subject matter of the alleged libels became, and was, a matter of 'public interest, 1 and thereupon they published the comments set out in plaintiff's statement bona fide for the public good and without sinister or malicious motives. They deny also that the same publications are libellous. Sir Robert Stout, instructed by Messrs Buckley - and Stafford, is fbr the .plaintiff, and Mr Gr'ullyV with him Mr ; Skerrett, for 'the defendants. Mr Larnach, in his evidenae, ' detailed his movements during the session, ' and explained that he was 'called"-' to' Dunedin by an urgent message from the. dootor attending' his daughter; He was cross-examined to show that' it was ' ai common impression that he was about to' leave for Melbourne, and. that he. had; given a banquette oivil servants, and to a gentleman who spoke to him on the matter . said that he was going to leave the colony, \ .Ee had reaoived an apology by telegram from the defendants, but did not deem it sufficient. Dr Coughtrey was called to> prove the illness of p'aintiff's daughter, but the evidence was not admitted as relevant, ; , •' , ', ; ■■ , LATEB.'' ,j The only evidence called for the defence in the Larnach v. N.Z. Herald libel case was that of Mr G. M. Reed, who wrote the first article complained of, and W« Barry, editor of the N.Z. Herald, wtio wrote the second. They deposed that they wrote , without malice in the public interest, on what they supposed to be the true ,-t»qte of tho Csse. An apology had b'eon published in the yaper, and also tendered privately by telegram to Mr Lirnacb, when it was 1 ascertained 'that 'the facts were wrong. ' Mr Gully asked His Bonor to direct the jury that the articles wore -justified oh the circumstances the writora Had before ttwm, but Judge Richmond said the latter were bound to assure themselves that the facts were correct before commenting on them. Oounbil having'addressed toe jury briefly, His Honor Bummed up, pointing-out that the facts ■ npon which the comment 1 wbb based by public writora must be established on reasonable evidence. He quoted several cases, including Bryce, v. iiusden, .to show the Btate, of the' law, and eaid it had been admitted, that tbore was an error in the facts. The jury, after retiring for 40 • micutes, returned, and asked what sum : « oultl carry costs. His Honor said the • coats were now at the dieoretiOD of' the. Judge; The jury then gave a verdict for' the plaintiff with £500 damages, Costs were allowed on the middle scale.